Developing a Process to Evaluate Construction

Project Safety Hazard Index Using the

Possibility Approach in India
D. A. Patel 1 and K. N. Jha 2

Abstract: Hazard evaluation is a critical task in safety management of construction projects because of their characteristics and dynamics.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This study provides a framework to evaluate the project hazard index (PHI), which represents the hazard level of a construction project by
using the possibility approach (fuzzy set theory). To achieve this objective, the study has been conducted in two phases. In the first phase, 10
hazardous trades and their physical attributes have been shortlisted and a three-level hierarchical structure has been constructed to evaluate the
PHI. In the second phase, the methodology of evaluation and determination of the weight of each hazardous trade with its attributes were
carried out using tools such as fuzzy measures, fuzzy integrals, fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP), and the weighted sum method
(WSM). Correlation between the PHI and safety budget of several project sites owned by the Delhi Metro rail project validates this study. The
PHI will be useful to differentiate the projects based on their project hazard level and accordingly, decisions can be made to improve safety
management in construction projects. Application of fuzzy measure and nonadditive fuzzy integral, nonprobability (possibility) approach,
and considerations of trades instead of activities are some of the key highlights and contributions of this study. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0001205. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Project hazard; Construction safety; Delphi method; Fuzzy logic; Fuzzy integrals; Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process
(FAHP); Weighted sum method (WSM); India; Labor and personnel issues.

Introduction
A hazard is a source of potential harm or a situation that can cause
loss [Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) 2007]. The loss may be
unintentional injuries or death to people, or damage to or loss of
an item or belongings. Therefore, the estimation of the hazard level
at construction sites should be considered for all on-site activities
that are deemed hazardous trades of the project. However, two main
difficulties arise in doing so: (1) selection and measurement of haz-
ardous trades and their attributes, and (2) determination of an evalu-
ation method of the project hazard level of construction projects.
Because of their increasing complexity and dynamism, con-
struction projects raise significant uncertainties and subjectivities in
the evaluation of project hazard level. A typical construction project
generally includes several activities and trades like excavation,
demolition, roof work, electrical work, road work, underground
utilities trenching work, and use of different types of machinery and
equipment, etc. Most of the time, construction professionals are
able to express project hazard level in qualitative terms only such
as: high, very high, low, etc. They are also unaware of the evalu-
ation process for the project hazard level especially in the presence
of a large number of hazardous trades. In addition, due to the
number of physical attributes that define a hazardous trade, the
1 and their measurement attributes; (2) prepare the framework to
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, S.V. National Institute
of Technology, Surat 395007, Gujarat, India. E-mail: dapscholar@gmail
.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India (corresponding
author). E-mail: knjha@civil.iitd.ac.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 3, 2016; approved on
May 25, 2016; published online on July 18, 2016. Discussion period open
until December 18, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engi-
neering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
measurement of the overall project hazard level is not an easy task.
The evaluation of a project hazard level can be considered a multi-
criteria decision-making problem in which multiple experts and
respondents decide hazardous trades and evaluate the attributes
of each.
The present study uses the fuzzy set theory (possibility ap-
proach), fuzzy integral, and multicriteria decision making (MCDM)
methods like the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) and
weighted sum method (WSM) to develop a project hazard level
evaluation methodology. The fuzzy set theory conveniently and
effectively deals with subjective judgment. The fuzzy integral eval-
uates the attributes of hazardous trades and FAHP and WSM
structure hazardous trades associated with a project. The proposed
methodology incorporates knowledge and experience acquired
from selected construction experts. The determination of hazardous
trades and attributes, framing of their structure, and sound subjec-
tive judgments are considered to assess the project hazard index
(PHI), which reflects hazard level of a project.
Objectives of the Study
In brief, the prime objectives of this study are to (1) determine the
important hazardous trades existing in typical construction projects
evaluate the project hazard level; (3) develop the evaluation process
to obtain the PHI using the proposed framework; (4) formulate and
present the PHI to evaluate the project hazard level of a construc-
tion project; and (5) validate the practical applicability of the PHI.
Literature Review
Each construction project has a unique nature and, therefore, the
project hazard level depends on its characteristics and differs from

© ASCE 04016081-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 site to site even in the same project. New hazards emerge on an
almost daily basis because the jobsite is continually changing as
construction proceeds (Laukkanen 1999). Therefore, identification
of hazards and their assessment are major issues in a construction
project.
In assessment of hazards, there are two main types of barriers
(Carter and Smith 2006): (1) knowledge and information barriers;
and (2) process and procedures barriers. Knowledge and informa-
tion barriers include lack of information sharing across projects,
lack of resources in smaller projects, subjective nature of hazard
identification and risk assessment, and reliance upon tacit knowl-
edge; whereas process and procedure barriers often consist of a lack
of standardized approaches and undefined structure for tasks and
hazards.
Several studies attempted to assess the risk of hazards existing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
at the project site. Lott (2005) considered the workplace as one of
the hazards in the assessment of the workers’ risk-management pro-
gram to predict incurred costs. According to his study, based on the
project’s hazard level assessment, some strategic decisions may be
taken to improve the safety performance of the project. For exam-
ple, assessment of a project’s hazard level may be helpful to top
management in allocating resources. Liu and Tsai (2012) deter-
mined and presented important types and causes of hazards in
the construction industry and calculated the risk assessment value
of each hazard’s cause, risk, and method of prevention and im-
provement. In the United States, Dharmapalan et al. (2015) quan-
tified the construction safety risk of each of the design elements
present in typical multistory buildings and developed an online de-
sign risk-assessment tool. However, the frequency ratings obtained
for this study are risk perceptions of construction personnel and are
not based on empirical data.
Gürcanli and Müngen (2009) presented a method to assess
the risks faced by workers at construction sites using a fuzzy-
rule-based safety analysis using historical accident data, subjective
judgments of experts, and current safety level of a construction site.
They used three parameters, namely, accident likelihood, current
safety level, and accident severity. Similarly, Fung et al. (2010) de-
veloped the probability-based quantitative risk assessment model
(RAM), which uses different levels of work trades. As a principle
of RAM, an historical accident record to calculate the probability
of occurrence of accidents is needed. The main issue with proba-
bility analysis is the use of probability measure to evaluate uncer-
tainty. Therefore, studies are needed to define and develop each
factor’s probability distribution using historical data in estimating
relative frequencies. Because of the nonrepetitive nature of con-
struction projects, the knowledge of relative frequencies cannot just
be assumed and applied from one project to another. According to
Baradan and Usmen (2006), few construction firms have the quan-
tity and quality of data needed to perform meaningful risk analysis.
In developing countries, practitioners are generally used to simply
assuming the relative frequencies in every project without consid-
ering the hazard level of the project. The hazard level of the project
depends on many factors like location of the project, scope and
characteristics of the projects, use of equipment, etc. Thus, uncer-
tainty associated with these projects is generally caused by the in-
herent fuzziness of the parameter estimate rather than randomness.
In multivariate data analysis, uncertainty is considered as prob-
ability phenomena, whereas possible data analysis is considered as
possibility phenomena (Tanaka et al. 2000). Probability measures
the likelihood of occurrence, whereas possibility measures the
degree of certainty. Uncertainty existing in real risk situations is
related to the knowledge of things rather than depending on chance
(Mohamed and McCowan 2001). The possibility theory uses a pair
of dual-set functions while the probability theory uses a one-set
© ASCE 04016081-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1
function (Zadeh 1978; Sachs and Tiong 2009; Dubois and Prade
2015). Zadeh (1995) argued that probability theory is not sufficient
with uncertainty and imprecision. However, probability theory and
fuzzy logic are not competitive; rather, they complement each other.
Probability lacks the capability to handle perception-based informa-
tion, which is a product of human cognition. Possibility theory like
fuzzy set theory provides solutions to problems that lack the math-
ematical rigor inherent to probability theory (Baloi and Price 2003).
Therefore, possibility theory was successfully implemented in en-
gineering and management areas including construction safety
management (Mohamed and McCowan 2001). Moreover, the prac-
tice of compiling and publishing data on accidents and their relative
frequencies is rare, particularly in developing countries like India
(Patel and Jha 2015). Therefore, the possibility approach (fuzzy set
theory) seems more appropriate for this study.
The fuzzy set theory has been widely used in the construction
safety management field. Tam et al. (2002) developed the Non-
structural Fuzzy Decision Support System (NSFDSS) to evaluate
construction safety management system using fuzzy set theory and
an analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Dağdeviren and Yüksel
(2008) presented a fuzzy AHP approach to evaluate the faulty
behavior risk in a work system. Pinto (2014) developed a qualita-
tive occupational safety risk-assessment model (QRAM) to assess
the aspects of safety climate and safety barrier effectiveness in con-
struction. Liu and Tsai (2012) presented a fuzzy risk-assessment
method against occupational hazards in the construction industry.
In this study, an analytic network process (ANP) was used to iden-
tify important hazard types and their causes. Failure mode and ef-
fect analysis (FMEA) was used to assess the risk value of hazard
causes through the fuzzy interference approach. However, the study
was focused only on telecom projects and thus it is difficult to use
this method in other types of construction projects. In addition, Liu
and Tsai (2012) believed that fuzzy numbers other than triangular
fuzzy numbers (TFN) could be used for a better result. According
to Lee (2006), selection of a membership function depends on com-
putation efficiency, its simplicity, amount of data, and variance in
the data set. The simplest types of membership functions are tri-
angular and trapezoidal because of their linear boundaries, simple
formulas, and computational efficiency. The trapezoidal function
is preferred to the triangular function when there is more variance
in the data sets (Lee 2006).
Several researchers have developed hazard indices in their
specific studies. For example, Benardos and Kaliampakos (2004)
developed a methodology to assess geotechnical hazards for tun-
neling boring machines (TBM). They proposed a vulnerability in-
dex to assess the hazards based only on the principles of a rock
engineering system. Imriyas et al. (2008) proposed a new premium
rating framework in the context of the Singaporean construction
industry based on 17 variables pertaining to the worker compensa-
tion insurance (WCI) premium rating from an extensive literature
review. They identified the most important and effective variables
to decide the premium using the Pareto 80=20 statistical analysis.
Imriyas et al. (2008) found that the project hazard level is the most
important variable to determine the premium of insurance for the
construction projects. To assess the project hazard level, they pre-
sented simple PHI using 11 hazardous trades and their respective
physical attributes in building projects, which were determined
based on literature review only.
In brief, many hazardous activities and tasks exist in a construc-
tion project. To assess the project hazard level, it is quite difficult
to enlist and combine all activities and their measurement criteria.
Construction projects engage a variety of trades for carrying out
a variety of tasks on project sites. There are varying degrees of haz-
ards and risks associated with different types of work performed
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 by these trades (Baradan and Usmen 2006). Therefore, this study
prefers to use trades instead of activities to differentiate the projects
based on their hazard level. For example, the hazard in roofing trade
can be inferred by its attributes like the roof’s height, slope, and
materials used. The impact of hazardous trades and the level of their
physical attributes are different from one project to another. There-
fore, a list of general hazardous trades with their attributes is re-
quired. However, because of the confounding nature of hazardous
trades, it is almost impossible to reach a consensus about their
attributes among experts and practitioners. In addition, the measure-
ment of some physical attributes is quite difficult due to their fuzzy
nature. Therefore, a framework for evaluation is required to develop
the index, which can represent the hazard level of projects.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Framework for Evaluation of Project Hazard Level
This study formulates a PHI that represents the project hazard level
of a construction project. The evaluation of a PHI is considered to
be a multiattribute decision method (MADM) problem. Therefore,
a hierarchical framework to develop a PHI was constructed as
shown in Fig. 1. In this study, it is assumed that the hazard level
of any construction project depends on the existing hazardous
trades. Of these, there are some critical and important hazardous
trades that can be considered for evaluating the project hazard
level. Each of these hazardous trades is characterized by its attrib-
utes. Based on the research conducted by Imriyas et al. (2008), a
framework can be developed to evaluate the PHI for this study. The
hazardous trades and their physical attributes are shown at Level 2
and Level 3, respectively, in Fig. 1, whereas the project hazard level
measured by the PHI is at Level 1 in Fig. 1.
The MADM approach has mainly four parts: (1) alternatives;
(2) attributes; (3) weight or relative importance of each attribute;
and (4) measure or performance of alternatives with reference to the
attributes. For illustration, consider one of the hazardous trades—
roofing work. It is very difficult to measure the hazards involved in
roofing work, and thus it needs some measurable physical attributes
that can reflect its hazard level. Quantum (volume) of roofing
works, height of the roofing works, types of roofing materials,
and inclination of the roof may be considered as some of the attrib-
utes of roofing work. In addition, the relative importance and
weight of each attribute needs to be known, even though the
MADM method specifies how to process and evaluate attribute
information. To avoid difficulties in calculation, Rao (2007) sug-
gests using no more than 10 alternatives (hazardous trades) in any
MADM method. Therefore, this study needs to determine the 10
most important hazardous trades, with their physical attributes, and
Fig. 1. Framework for evaluation of project hazard level
© ASCE 04016081-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1
select the appropriate MADM method to develop a framework to
evaluate PHI of the construction project.
Research Methodology
For the sake of convenience, the whole study was conducted in two
phases as shown in Fig. 2.
Steps in Phase 1 of Research
In this phase, the first step enlists the typical hazardous trades and
their measurement attributes that represent the hazard level of dif-
ferent projects. For this, a questionnaire survey was designed and
analysis performed using the Delphi method.
The Delphi process generally consists of three rounds of
survey questionnaires. In the first round, experts respond to a broad
question, while each additional round builds upon the responses
collected from earlier rounds. The process is terminated when con-
sensus is reached (Delbecq et al. 1975). Hallowell and Gambatese
(2010) presented a standard methodology for applying the Delphi
method in rigorous studies and suggested the basic steps of the
Delphi procedure. However, the Delphi method is sometimes criti-
cized because of the shortcuts and modifications to the prescribed
research method. In this regard, as indicated in Table 1, the standard
guideline has also been presented by Hallowell and Gambatese
(2010) to implement the Delphi method.
At the end of the first phase, the study determines hazardous
trades and their measurement attributes that represent the hazard
level of different projects.
Steps in Phase II of Research
Subsequently, in the second phase, the relative importance and
weight of hazardous trades and their attributes are evaluated and a
method to evaluate the project hazard level of a construction project
is presented. As the attributes are interdependent, fuzzy measures
and fuzzy integrals are employed to evaluate and decide the relative
importance of physical attributes of each hazardous trade.
The concept of fuzzy measure was first presented by Sugeno
(1974). The fuzzy measure generalizes the usual definition of a
measure by replacing the usual additivity property with a monot-
onicity property with respect to set inclusion. Similar attempts
regarding nonadditive measures were made by Shafer (1976) and
Zadeh (1978). As suggested by Sugeno (1974), fuzzy measures are
suitable to express grades of fuzziness, for example, the quantities
depending on human subjectivity. However, by the nature of the
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Research methodology

Table 1. Guidelines for the Delphi Procedure

Characteristic Minimum requirement by Hallowell and Gambatese (2010) Minimum requirement adopted in this study
Identifying potential • Membership in a nationally recognized committee in the • Membership of National Safety Council of India (NSCI)
experts focus area of the research (e.g., ASCE site safety committee)
• Primary writer of publications in ASCE journals • Known participation in similar expert-based studies
• Known participation in similar expert-based studies • Delegation and expert list of conference, seminar, training,
and other events
Qualifying panelists Experts must satisfy at least four of the following criteria in Experts must satisfy at least four of the following criteria in
as experts the topics related to the research: the topics related to the research:
• Primary or secondary writer of at least three peer-reviewed • Invited to present at a conference, training program
journal articles
• Invited to present at a conference • Member or chair of a nationally recognized committee,
society, or council
• Member or chair of a nationally recognized committee • At least 10 years of professional experience in safety in the
construction industry
• At least 5 years of professional experience in the • At least 2weeks of OHS related training
construction industry
• Faculty member at an accredited institution of higher • Primary or secondary writer of at least three peer-reviewed
learning journal articles
• Writer or editor of a book or book chapter on the topic of • Advanced degree in the field of civil engineering, CEM,
construction safety and health, or risk management or other related fields (minimum of a BE/B.Tech)
• Advanced degree in the field of civil engineering, CEM, • Professional registration such as Registered Engineer (PE),
or other related fields (minimum of a BS) Licensed Engineer
• Professional registration such as professional engineer (PE),
licensed
• Architect (AIA), certified safety professional (CSP),
associated risk manager (ARM)
Number of panelists 8–12 10
Number of rounds 3 3
Feedback for each round — —
Round 1 Data from preliminary research or archived data (if available) Data from preliminary research, existing literature,
interviews with experts or archived data (if available)
Round 2 Median response from Round 1 Median response from Round 1
Round 3 Median response from Round 2 and reasons for outlying Median response from Round 2 and reasons for outlier
responses responses
Measuring consensus Absolute deviation Absolute deviation (mean), coefficient of variation, range
of data
Note: BE = bachelor of civil engineering; CEM = construction engineering and management; OHS = occupational health and safety.

definition of a fuzzy measure g, the measure of the union of two and the λ-fuzzy measure for λ ¼ 0 is a probability measure (Banon
disjointed subsets cannot be directly computed from the component 1981). Appendix I provides further details on λ-fuzzy measure.
measures. In light of this, Sugeno (1974) introduced the so-called Using the notion of fuzzy measures, Sugeno (1974) presented
λ-fuzzy measures. A λ-fuzzy measure is indeed a fuzzy measure the concept of the fuzzy integral, which is an aggregator operator

© ASCE 04016081-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 Table 2. Linguistics Values of W ij and X ij
Linguistic variables for W ij Fuzzy linguistic values for W ij Linguistic variables for X ij Fuzzy linguistic values for X ij
Extremely unimportant (EUI) (0.00, 0.00, 0.10, 0.15) Extremely low (EL) (0.00, 0.00, 0.10, 0.15)
Very un-important (VUI) (0.10, 0.15, 0.25, 0.30) Very low (VL) (0.10, 0.15, 0.25, 0.30)
Little un-important (LUI) (0.25, 0.30, 0.40, 0.45) Little low (LL) (0.25, 0.30, 0.40, 0.45)
Neutral (N) (0.40, 0.45, 0.55, 0.60) Neutral (N) (0.40, 0.45, 0.55, 0.60)
Little important (LI) (0.55, 0.60, 0.70, 0.75) Little high (LH) (0.55, 0.60, 0.70, 0.75)
Very important (VI) (0.70, 0.75, 0.85, 0.90) Very high (VH) (0.70, 0.75, 0.85, 0.90)
Extremely important (EI) (0.85, 0.90, 1.00, 1.00) Extremely high (EH) (0.85, 0.90, 1.00, 1.00)

in multicriteria decision making. In brief, the λ-fuzzy measure and Y

n

fuzzy integral concept deal with the problems of weights; this is λþ1¼ ð1 þ λgi Þ ð4Þ
i¼1
nonadditive and therefore is known as a nonadditive fuzzy inte-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

gral. Hence, this study uses a λ-fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral
to evaluate the attributes of hazrdous trades.
Evaluation of Attributes Using Fuzzy Measures and
Integrals
The attributes of hazardous trades are evaluated in the following
four steps:
Step 1: Define the Membership Functions of Fuzzy Linguistic
Sets. In this real evaluation process, respondents were asked to
evaluate the performance and the importance of the attribute on
a seven-point scale. Accordingly, linguistic variable for X ij (lingus-
tic evaluation value of jth attribute for ith hazardous trade for a
given construction project) and W ij (lingustic weight value of
jth attribute for the ith hazardous trade) and their membership func-
tions are defined consisting of seven elements as given in Table 2.
The symmetrical trapezoidal-shaped membership functions, which
are used most often, are employed in this study.
Step 2: Aggregate Fuzzy Values of Both Attributes and Weights.
Saaty (1986) recommends the use of the geometric mean for the syn-
thesis of judgments. According to the linguistic values defined in
Step 1, after taking the geometric mean of the k (number of respond-
ents) values, fuzzy evaluation value of the jth attribute for the ith
hazardous trade X fij , and fuzzy weight value of the jth attribute
for ith hazardous trade W g ij are computed following Eqs. (1) and (2):
fij ¼ ðX ij  X ij  · · · X ij Þ1=k
X ð1Þ
1 2 k
g 1=k
W ij ¼ ðW ij1  W ij2  · · · W ijk Þ
Step 3: Defuzzification. Many methods of defuzzification are
available (Chen and Hwang 1992). Delgado et al. (1998) suggested
that it is not proper to use a single method to transform from linguistic
domain to numerical domain. They recommended using multiple
transformation functions for defuzzification. In this study, three
methods are used to obtain defuzzification value: (1) distance meas-
g g
urement M 1 ðW ij Þ (Chen 2000); (2) central value M 2 ðW ij Þ (Delgado
g to extend the range of a distinct decision matrix in the classical
et al. 1998); and (3) center of gravity (center of area) M 3 ðW
The mean of M1 ðW g Þ, M 2 ðWg Þ, M 3 ð g
W Þ, is the
ij ij ij
g
defuzzification number MðW ij Þ as
g
M 1 ðW g g
ij Þ þ M 2 ðW ij Þ þ M 3 ðW ij Þ
g
MðW ij Þ ¼
3 The procedures for determining the weight of each hazardous trade
Step 4: Fuzzy Measure and Fuzzy Integral. According to
Eqs. (13) and (14) given in Appendix I and gðXÞ ¼ 1, the following
can be obtained:
Hence, if the fuzzy densities, gi , are known for i ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; n,
the λ-fuzzy measure can be constructed. Where gij ¼ SðW g ij Þ,
then
 l 
1  Y 
gλ ½ðX i1 ; X i2 ; : : : ; X il Þ ¼  ½1 þ λSðW ij Þ − 1
f f f g ð5Þ
λj¼1
fij Þ, if SðX
Suppose hðX ij Þ ¼ SðX fil Þ > SðXg f
iðl−1Þ Þ > · · · > SðX i1 Þ
then
fi1 ; · · · ; X
hi ¼ hðX ij Þfgλ ðX fil Þ − gλ ½X~ i1; : : : ; Xg
iðl−1Þ g
þ · · · þhðX i1 Þgλ ½Xg f
iðl−1Þ ¼gλ ðX il ÞfhðX il Þ − h½X iðl−1Þ g
fi1 ÞhðX i1 Þ
þ · · · þgλ ðX ð6Þ
After getting the value for the ith attribute, the weight of 10
hazardous trades is determined by employing fuzzy analytical hi-
erarchy process (FAHP) in the second level. Because 10 first-level
hazardous trades are independent, the additivity method, usually
FAHP, is appropriate for this kind of problem (Patel 2015).
Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is easier to understand and
it can effectively handle both qualitative and quantitative data. The
application of AHP does not involve cumbersome mathematics.
However, the usual AHP cannot approximate the human thinking
style because of uncertainty and vagueness (Lee 2014). To handle
the uncertainty and vagueness of subjective perception and the ex-
perience of the human decision-making process, many FAHP meth-
ð2Þ
ods are proposed by several authors (Skibniewski and Chao 1992;
Hastak and Halpin 2000; Shapira and Goldenberg 2005).
The FAHP determines the weights of decision criteria for each
relative interest group, including the owners, users, and experts.
The advantages of the FAHP method over Saaty’s (1980) classical
AHP method are: (1) decision makers have the liberty of estimation
regarding the overall goal of using fuzzy numbers—judgment can
go from optimistic to pessimistic; (2) fuzzy numbers are favorable
ij Þ.
AHP method; (3) the combination judgment from subcriteria to
final
major criteria is more suitable than the traditional single eigenvec-
tor method, which forms a square comparison matrix for all the
criteria.
ð3Þ Determination of Weight of Hazardous Trades Using FAHP
using FAHP can be summarized in the following five steps:
• Step 1: Construct fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix by ques-
tionnaire survey: The results of the questionnaire are converted
into a fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix by using Satty’s (1980)

© ASCE 04016081-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 Table 3. Scale for Comparison and Triangular Fuzzy Numbers
Fuzzy number Definition Explaination Scale of fuzzy number
1~ Equal importance Two criteria contribute equally to the objective (1,1,1)
3~ Weak importance Judgment slightly favors one criteria over another (2,3,4)
5~ Essential importance Judgment strongly favors one criteria over another (4,5,6)
7~ Very strong importance A criteria is favored very strongly over another (6,7,8)
9~ Absolute importance The evidence favoring one criteria over another is of the (9,9,9)
highest possible order
~ 4,
2, ~ 8~
~ 6, Intermediate values between x ¼ 2, 4, 6, and 8 (x − 1, x, x þ 1)
adjacent scale values

nine-point scale and their corresponding triangular fuzzy num- value of Pi is considered as the most hazardous project. Thus,
bers (TFN) as given in Table 3. at this level, using Eq. (11), overall hazardous value is computed
• Step 2: Group Aggregation: After constructing the fuzzy pair-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

through an operation of WSM that integrates the score of each

wise comparison matrix, the geometric mean of each hazardous hazardous trade.
trade in the matrix can be calculated as follows (Buckley 1985): Thus, for this study, the final value of the PHI can be
calculated as
g
M fij 1  m
ij ¼ ðm fij k Þ1=k
fij 2  : : : : : :  m ð7Þ
PHIi ¼ h1 · W 1 þ h2 · W 2 þ · · · þh10 · W 10 ð11Þ
where Mg ij = integrated triangular fuzzy number; mfij k = ith to
the jth attribute pair comparison value by the respondent’s k. where PHIi = numerical value of the hazard level for a construction
• Step 3: Construct the fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix: Obtain- project i.
ing the final calculated fuzzy numbers could form the fuzzy Delgado et al. (1998) also proposed a numerical linguistic trans-
positive reciprocal matrix after Step 2 as follows: formation function, which provides a representative label for a
given numerical value (Appendix II).
g
M ¼ ½M ij 

where M = fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix and Mg g

ji ¼ 1=M ij . Data Collection
• Step 4: Estimate the attributes’ fuzzy weights: By using the
formula proposed by Buckley (1985), the fuzzy weight can be In the first phase of the study, a questionnaire survey was conducted
calculated as follows: to shortlist 10 typical hazardous trades based on experts’ opinions.
To apply the Delphi method, this study modifies selection criteria
Zei ¼ ðf
ai1 ⊗ af f
i2 ⊗ · · · ·⊗ a in Þ
1=n
; ∀ i ¼ 1; 2; : : : n; for panelists and experts (Table 1) in the context of the Indian con-
fi ¼ Zei ⊗ ðZ
W f1  Z
f2  · · · ·· Z
fn Þ −1
ð8Þ struction industry. To emphasize greater field experience, at least
10 years of professional experience in safety was fixed as one of
where af ij = relative importance between hazardous trade i and j;
the criteria for selection of experts. The experts belong to compa-
Zei = fuzzy geometric mean of hazardous trade i; and W fi = fuzzy nies that are the members of Construction Industry Council of India
weight corresponding to hazardous trade i. (CIDC) New Delhi. These companies are big and self-performing
• Step 5: Defuzzification and normalization: The defuzzification work organizations and have established safety management sys-
process can be conducted using the method of center of gravity tem in their building, industrial, and infrastructures projects.
(center of area) M 3 ðW gij Þ. Thus, for i ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; k, the weight
Based on existing literature reviews (NICMAR 1998; BIS 2001;
vector can be obtained using Eq. (9) Imriyas et al. 2008) and interviews with 10 experts in the first round
of survey under the Delphi process, 16 hazardous trades and their
f1 Þ; MðW
W ¼ ½MðW f2 Þ; : : : ::MðW
fk ÞT ð9Þ physical attributes of a typical construction project were selected as
listed in Table 4. In the second round of the survey, the findings of
where W = nonfuzzy number. the first round of interviews were presented to the experts. Experts
were asked to evaluate the importance of the hazardous trades and
Computing Project Hazard Index (PHI) Using Weighted physical attributes on a seven-point scale varying from extremely
Sum Method (WSM) unimportant (1) to extremely important (7). In the seven-point
Finally, to obtain the PHI, the WSM that integrates the score of scale, Point 4 stands for neutral, while Points 2, 3, 5, and 6 stand
each hazardous trade is used. The WSM is the simplest but most for intermediate values to reflect compromises as indicated in
widely used multiattribute decision-making method (Rao 2007; Table 4. The objective is to verify the consensus of the safety ex-
Chou et al. 2008). In this method, each hazardous trade is assigned perts and the reliability of the attributes for each hazardous trade as
a weight, and the sum of all weights must be 1. Each project is well as to limit the hazardous trades to a maximum of 10. Based on
assessed with reference to every hazardous trade. In this way, the the results of the second round, all required statistical parameters
overall or composite performance score of the project is calculated like absolute deviation (AD) (median), coefficient of variation
using Eq. (10) (CV), and range of the data were computed as presented in Table 5
to judge whether experts have reached consensus to a certain
X
h
Pi ¼ W j ðhij Þnormal ð10Þ extent. Jordan and Javernick-Will (2013) and Cao (2006) computed
j¼1 absolute deviation (AD) (median) and coefficient of variation (CV)
in their studies by using the Delphi method. Statistical parameters
where ðhij Þnormal = normalized value of ðhij Þ; and Pi = overall or and their cut-off values depend on the requirement of the study.
composite score of the alternatives. The project with the highest Therefore, it needs to fix the statistical parameters because of a lack

© ASCE 04016081-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 Table 4. List of Hazardous Trades and their Attributes
Hazardous trades and attributes Likert scalea
1. Demolition work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Volume/size of demolition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Type of structure and reasons of its demolition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Method and equipment used for demolition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d. Waste material (disposal, quantity, type of material, space for storage etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Excavation work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Excavation configuration (depth, width, length, slope) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Geological condition (soil type, water table, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Underground utilities (electrical, water, and sewer lines, telephone line, gas line etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d. Nearby vehicular traffic (vibration and surcharge) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
e. Nearby structures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Scaffolding and ladder usage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Volume of scaffolding and ladder usage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Height of the scaffold/ladder to be used 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

c. Adequacy of design (type of material, member size, bracing, guardrails, platform size, toe board) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Falsework (temporary structure) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Volume of falsework involved in the project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b Adequacy of design (material, member size, bracing, guardrails, platform size, toe board) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Roof work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Quantum (volume) of roofing involved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Height of the roof 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Roofing material property such as slippery, brittleness, asbestos etc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d. Inclination of the roof 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Erection of steel/precast concrete structures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Volume of erection work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Height of erection work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Erection method (partial/full erection at height, labor involvement level) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d. Adequacy of design (holding down bolts, anchor points, bracings, alignment, positioning, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Lifting and hoisting machinery 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Volume of lifting and hosting involved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Nature of materials lifted and hoisted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Operating platform 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d. Nature of site vicinity (nearby structures, overhead cables, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Construction tools and machinery use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Volume of plant and machinery used 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Operating platform of plant and machinery (i.e., slope etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Site layout 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d. Volume of tools used 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
e. Type of tools used 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Works on contaminated sites 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Type of contaminants on the site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Quantity of contaminants present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Duration of work on contaminated site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Welding, cutting and hot work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. The volume of welding, cutting and hot works 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Location of welding (confined space, underground, on ladders etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Work in confined spaces (including bore holes) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. The volume of confined space works 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Confined space configuration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Type of activity to be involved (e.g., welding, waterproofing, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d. Current usage of the confined space (if any) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Electrical work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Power lines configuration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Extension codes (numbers) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Generator configuration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Deep foundation and piling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Foundation configuration (depth, width, length, slope) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Geological condition (soil type, water table, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Number of cranes used for lowering workers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d. Number of pile driven machines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Tunnelling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Tunneling configuration (depth, width, length, slope) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Geological condition (soil type, water table, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Underground utilities (electrical, water, and sewer lines, telephone line, gas line etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d. Nearby vehicular traffic (vibration and surcharge) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
e. Tunneling method (e.g., Drilling, blasting, use of tunneling machine etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
f. Dewatering (quantity and method) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

© ASCE 04016081-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 Table 4. (Continued.)
Hazardous trades and attributes Likert scalea
15. Road work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Road configuration (length, lane, width, location, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Traffic volume on the road 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Use of machinery (excavators, graders, pavers, rollers, haulers etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d. Hot mix plant configuration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Concrete work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Concrete configuration (volume, location, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. Concrete mixing (in situ, ready mix, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Concrete/material transportation and placing (length and methods) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d. Curing method 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Note: A score of 4 stands for neutral while scores of 2, 3, 5, and 6 stand for intermediate values to reflect compromises.
a
Extremely unimportant (1) to extremely important (7).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 5. Statistical Parameters of Hazardous Trades

Hazardous trade Mean Median SD CV AD (median) Maximum Minimum Range
1. Erection of steel/precast concrete structure 5.80 6.00 0.92 0.16 0.60 7.00 4.00 3.00
2. Tunneling 6.40 6.50 0.70 0.11 0.60 7.00 5.00 2.00
3. Concrete work 3.60 3.00 0.84 0.23 0.60 5.00 3.00 2.00
4. Falsework (temporary structures) 5.10 5.00 0.99 0.19 0.70 7.00 4.00 3.00
5. Construction tools and machinery use 5.10 5.00 0.99 0.19 0.70 7.00 4.00 3.00
6. Excavation work 6.00 6.00 1.25 0.21 0.80 7.00 3.00 4.00
7. Scaffolding and ladder usage 5.80 5.50 0.92 0.16 0.80 7.00 5.00 2.00
8. Roof work 4.60 4.50 0.97 0.21 0.80 6.00 3.00 3.00
9. Lifting and hoisting machinery 6.20 7.00 1.14 0.18 0.80 7.00 4.00 3.00
10. Welding, cutting, and hot work 4.60 4.50 0.97 0.21 0.80 6.00 3.00 3.00
11. Works in confined spaces (including boreholes) 5.80 6.00 1.23 0.21 0.80 7.00 3.00 4.00
12. Electrical work 5.60 6.00 1.35 0.24 1.00 7.00 3.00 4.00
13. Deep foundation and piling 5.40 5.00 1.26 0.23 1.00 7.00 4.00 3.00
14. Road work 4.40 4.00 1.35 0.31 1.00 6.00 2.00 4.00
15. Demolition work 5.40 6.00 1.65 0.30 1.20 7.00 2.00 5.00
16. Work on contaminated sites 5.00 5.00 1.76 0.35 1.40 7.00 2.00 5.00
Note: AD = absolute deviation; CV = coefficient of variation; SD = standard deviation.

of a guideline to measure the consensus in the Delphi method
(Hallowell and Gambatese 2010). Hence, this study adopts the cri-
teria that absolute deviation (AD) (median), coefficient of variation
(CV), and range of the data, should be less than 1.00, 0.24, and 5,
respectively. The criteria were decided based on variation in data
and previous studies (Cao 2006; Hallowell and Gambatese 2010;
Jordan and Javernick-Will 2013; Patel 2015). As a result, five
hazardous trades—electrical work, deep foundation, road works,
demolition works, and works on contaminated sites—were re-
moved from the list because either one or more of their statistical
parameters were higher than the permissible limit (Table 5).
Afterward, the Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the remain-
ing 11 hazardous trades to test reliability as indicated in Table 6.
Reliability estimates of all hazardous trades were greater than 0.7,
providing evidence of internal consistency within items (Hair et al.
1995). Referring to Table 6, scaffolding and ladder usage (0.381);
erection of steel (0.352); lifting and hoisting machinery (0.667);
welding, cutting, and hot works (0.689); works in confined spaces
(0.314); tunneling (0.604); and concrete work (0.580) have alpha
values lower less than 0.7. However, alpha values could be im-
proved by dropping irrelevant attributes (Hair et al. 1995). There-
fore, as indicated by italics the first column of Table 6, the following
were deleted: (1) volume of scaffolding and ladder usage
was deleted from scaffolding and ladder usage; (2) volume of
erection work was deleted from erection of steel; (3) confined space
configuration was deleted from works in confined spaces;
(4) underground utilities and nearby vehicular traffic were deleted
from tunneling; and (5) concrete mixing was deleted from concrete
work. Thus the alpha value of almost all hazardous trades was im-
proved; these are shown in brackets in the second column of Table 6.
It is observed that deleted attributes were difficult to measure in
order to evaluate their corresponding hazardous trade. However,
it appears that lifting and hoisting machinery (0.667), welding, cut-
ting, and hot works (0.689), and works in confined spaces (0.420)
could not reach 0.70, although the alpha value of lifting and hoisting
machinery (0.667) and welding, cutting, and hot works (0.689) is
near 0.70. In this regard, Churchill (1979) advocates that a value of
0.6 can be considered as acceptable for newly developed scales.
Therefore, this study has considered both of these hazardous
trades—lifting and hoisting machinery (0.667) and welding, cut-
ting, and hot works (0.689)—and dropped works in confined spaces
(0.420) because of its low value of alpha from the final list of haz-
ardous trades to evaluate the project hazard level. Almost all haz-
ardous trades have an attribute related to volume or configuration of
work. Possibly this has led to the low value of alpha for the attribute
“work in confined spaces”. The attribute “nearby vehicular traffic”
obtains a low alpha score because this gets overshadowed by the
two attributes of tunneling, namely “tunneling configuration”
and “geological condition”. Thus, at the end of the second round
of the Delphi method, 10 hazardous trades and their attributes were
finally shortlisted as presented in Table 7 to evaluate the PHI.

© ASCE 04016081-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 Table 6. Cronbach’s Alpha of Hazardous Trades (Measures)
Hazardous trades and their attributes Alpha
1. Scaffolding and ladder usage
a. Volume of scaffolding and ladder usage 0.381 (0.816)
b. Height of the scaffold/ladder to be used
c. Adequacy of design (type of material, member size, bracing, guardrails, platform size, and toe board)
2. Falsework (temporary structures)
a. Volume of falsework involved in the project 0.792
b. Adequacy of design (material, member size, bracing, guardrails, platform size, and toe board)
3. Roof work
a. Volume of roofing involved 0.782
b. Height of the roof
c. Roofing material property such as slippery, brittleness, asbestos, etc
d. Inclination of the roof
4. Erection of steel/precast concrete structure
a. Volume of erection work 0.352 (0.728)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

b. Height of erection work

c. Erection method (partial/full erection at height, and labor involvement level)
d. Adequacy of design (holding down bolts, anchor points, bracings, alignment, positioning, etc.)
5. Lifting and hoisting machinery
a. Volume of lifting and hosting involved 0.667
b. Nature of materials lifted and hoisted
c. Operating platform
d. Nature of site vicinity (nearby structures, overhead cables, etc.)
6. Construction tools and machinery use
a. Volume of plant and machinery used 0.748
b. Operating platform of plant and machinery (i.e., slope, etc.)
c. Site layout
d. Volume of tools used
e. Type of tools used
7. Welding, cutting and hot work
a. The volume of welding, cutting and hot works 0.689
b. Location of welding (confined space, underground, on ladders, etc.)
8. Work in confined spaces (including bore holes)
a. The volume of confined space works 0.314 (0.420)
b. Confined space configuration
c. Type of activity to be involved (e.g., welding, waterproofing, etc)
d. Current usage of the confined space (if any)
9. Excavation work
a. Excavation configuration (depth, width, length, slope) 0.781
b. Geological condition (soil type, water table, etc.)
c. Underground utilities (electrical, water, and sewer lines, telephone lines, gas lines, etc,)
d. Nearby vehicular traffic (vibration and surcharge)
e. Nearby structures
10. Tunneling
a. Tunneling configuration (depth, width, length, and slope) 0.604 (0.721)
b. Geological condition (soil type, water table, etc.)
c. Tunneling method (e.g., drilling, blasting, use of tunneling machine, etc.)
d. Dewatering (quantity and method)
e. Underground utilities (electrical, water, and sewer lines, telephone lines, gas lines, etc.)
f. Nearby vehicular traffic (vibration and surcharge)
11. Concrete work
a. Concrete configuration (volume, location, etc.) 0.580 (0.734)
b. Concrete mixing (in situ, ready mix, etc.)
c. Concrete/material transportation and placing (length and methods)
d. Curing method

During the third and final round of the Delphi process, a panel of
experts was asked to look at the results, analysis, and the final lists
of the hazardous trades obtained from round two, and rate the
statements accordingly again. Furthermore, whenever their individ-
ual ratings were found to be different from the group rating, they
were asked to give an explanation. Hence, there was consensus
among all experts regarding the final list of hazardous trades with
their physical attributes to evaluate the project hazard level. In brief,
at the end of the first phase of the study, a list 10 typical hazardous
trades and their physical attributes was obtained and finalized to
evaluate the project hazard level of a typical construction project
as indicated in Table 7.
In the second phase of the study, a questionnaire survey was
conducted to obtain necessary data to determine the weight of haz-
ardous trades and their physical attributes. There are three sections
in the questionnaire. The first section asks about the demographics
of the respondents. The second section is for the weight of hazard-
ous trade (W i ) in the fuzzy AHP process, and the third is for the
weight of an attribute corresponding to its hazardous trade (W ij ) in
the fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral process.

© ASCE 04016081-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 Table 7. Final List of Hazardous Trades with their Attributes
Hazardous trade
Scaffolding and ladder usage
False work (temporary structures)
Roof work
Erection of steel/precast concrete structure
Lifting and hoisting machinery
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Attributes
Height of the scaffold/ladder to be used
Adequacy of design (type of material, member size, bracing, guardrails, platform size, toe board)
Volume of false work involved in the project
Adequacy of design (material, member size, bracing, guardrails, platform size, and toe board)
Volume of roofing involved
Height of the roof
Roofing material property such as slippery, brittleness, asbestos, etc.
Inclination of the roof
Height of erection work
Erection method (partial/full erection at height, and labor involvement level)
Adequacy of design (holding down bolts, anchor points, bracings, alignment, positioning, etc.)
Volume of lifting and hosting involved
Nature of materials lifted and hoisted
Operating platform

Nature of site vicinity (nearby structures, overhead cables, etc.)

Construction tools and machinery use Volume of plant and machinery used
Operating platform of plant and machinery (i.e., slope, etc.)
Site layout
Volume of tools used
Type of tools used
Welding, cutting, and hot work The volume of welding, cutting and hot works
Location of welding (confined space, underground, on ladders, etc.)
Excavation work Excavation configuration (depth, width, length, and slope)
Geological condition (soil type, water table, etc.)
Underground utilities (electrical, water, and sewer lines, telephone lines, gas lines, etc.)
Nearby vehicular traffic (vibration and surcharge)
Nearby structures
Concrete work Concrete configuration (volume, location, etc.)
Concrete/material transportation and placing (length and methods)
Curing method
Tunneling Tunneling configuration (depth, width, length, and slope)
Geological condition (soil type, water table, etc.)
Tunneling method (e.g., drilling, blasting, use of tunneling machine, etc.)
Dewatering (quantity and method)

In the fuzzy AHP (second) section of the questionnaire, re-
spondents were asked to assess the relative importance among
10 hazardous trades that were derived in the first phase of the
study using the Delphi method. A Likert scale of 1–9 was used
in the questionnaire, where AI (9) stands for absolute importance;
DI (7) stands for demonstrated importance; SI (5) stands for strong
importance; WI (3) stands for weak importance; EI (1) stands for
equal importance; and Options 2, 4, 6, and 8 stand for intermediate
values to reflect compromises. Similarly, in the third section, for
the fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral part, respondents were asked
to evaluate the importance of each third level attribute on a 7-point
scale from extremely unimportant (EUI) to extremely important
(EI), where (1) stands for extremely unimportant; (7) stands for
extremely important; (4) stands for neutral; and Options 2, 3, 5,
and 6 stand for intermediate values to reflect compromises.
A total of 40 undergraduate students in their final year and 5
safety professionals working and possessing at least 10 years of
experience in construction projects were selected to interview as
part of a pilot test to check the understanding of the questionnaire.
After their responses, the questionnaire was revised to make it more
comprehensible. Revisions of the questionnaire were mostly related
to its language, structure, understanding of the statements, etc.
The questionnaire survey was conducted in the Indian construction
industry to obtain the opinions of practitioners and executives (site
engineers, project executives, planning engineers, safety officers
etc.) associated with the execution of construction projects and
who possessed at least 5 years of experience. Before the interviews,
it was ensured that the respondents had enough experience to work
with all 10 hazardous trades selected in the previous section.
Participants were approached at sites, conferences, training centers,
workshops, and elsewhere. A total of 64 responses were collected
from different kinds of construction projects like metro rail, high-
way, and building construction projects across India.
Development of Project Hazard Index
As shown in Fig. 1, there are three levels, namely top, middle, and
bottom, in the framework. The process of evaluation is from bottom
to top, that is, from third level to first level as explained in the
following subsections.
Measurement of Attributes at the Third Level of the
Hierarchy (Using Fuzzy Measure and Fuzzy Integral)
The 10th hazardous trade, tunneling, and its four attributes of
(1) tunneling configuration, (2) geological condition, (3) tunneling
method, and (4) dewatering are taken to illustrate the results of the
four steps for fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral.
In Step 1, each respondent was asked to assess the importance
of these four attributes on a seven-point scale, from EUI (extremely
unimportant) to EI (extremely important). For example, the re-
sponses of one respondent are neutral (N), very important (VI),
little important (LI), very important (VI), very unimportant (VUI),
and extremely important (EI). The respective fuzzy values are
(0.40, 0.45, 0.55, 0.60), (0.70, 0.75, 0.85, 0.90), (0.55, 0.60, 0.70,

© ASCE 04016081-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 Table 8. Fuzzy Linguistic Values of a Hazardous Trade: Tunneling Table 9. λ Fuzzy Measure of Hazardous Trades
Defuzzification λ fuzzy
Attribute Fuzzy linguistic value value Hazardous trade measure Weight
Tunneling configuration (0.601, 0.643, 0.743, 0.774) 0.505 Scaffolding and ladder usage −0.629 0.066
Geological condition (0.528, 0.570, 0.670, 0.705) 0.429 Construction tools and machinery use −0.962 0.070
Tunneling method (0.626, 0.669, 0.769, 0.794) 0.531 Lifting and hoisting machinery −0.956 0.153
Dewatering (0.531, 0.574, 0.674, 0.711) 0.435 Welding, cutting, and hot work 0.111 0.083
Erection of steel/precast concrete structure −0.915 0.092
False work (temporary structure) 0.059 0.053
Excavation work −0.988 0.096
0.75), (0.70, 0.75, 0.85, 0.90), (0.10, 0.15, 0.25, 0.30), and (0.85, Roof work −0.962 0.108
0.90, 1.00, 1.00) (Table 2). Concrete work −0.664 0.049
In Step 2, aggregating the 64 evaluation values yields the fuzzy Tunneling −0.890 0.230
linguistic values of the tunneling configuration attribute. Similarly,
in Step 3, their corresponding defuzzification values can also be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

computed. The fuzzy linguistic values of the tunneling configura-

tion attribute with their defuzzification values are given in Table 8.
In Step 4, the value of λ should be first obtained using Eq. (5),
which is λþ1¼ð1þ0.505λÞð1þ0.429λÞð1þ0.531λÞð1þ0.435λÞ.
The value of λ is (−0.890).
For a given project, suppose the evaluation values of the four
attributes in descending order are hðX 101 Þ ¼ 0.650 > hðX 102 Þ ¼
0.650 > hðX 103 Þ ¼ 0.350 > hðX 104 Þ ¼ 0.22. Then, according to
Eq. (5), the fuzzy measure for the hazardous trade of tunneling
can be found as follows:
gλ ðx1 Þ ¼ 0.505
gλ ðx1 ; x2 Þ ¼ 0.505 þ 0.435 þ ð−0.890Þð0.505Þð0.435Þ ¼ 0.744
gλ ðx1 ; x2 ; x3 Þ ¼ 0.744 þ 0.531 þ ð−0.890Þð0.744Þð0.531Þ ¼ 0.923
gλ ðx1 ; x2 ; x3 ; x4 Þ ¼ 0.923 þ 0.429 þ ð−0.890Þð0.923Þð0.429Þ ¼ 1
Using Eq. (6), the value for the hazardous trade of tunneling can
be computed as follows:
h10 ¼ hðX 104 Þ × 1 þ ½ðhðX 104 Þ − hðX 103 Þ × 0.923
þ ½ðhðX 103 Þ − hðX 102 Þ × 0.744
þ ½ðhðX 102 Þ − hðX 101 Þ × 0.505 ¼ ð0.200 × 1Þ
þ ð0.350 − 0.200Þ × 0.923 þ ð0.650 − 0.350Þ × 0.744
þ ð0.650 − 0.650Þ × 0.505 ¼ 0.562
The other data can easily be computed using the MATLAB
program and/or the MS Excel. The λs of the remaining hazardous
trades are calculated and obtained as shown in Table 9.
Measurement of Hazardous Trades at the Second
Level of the Hierarchy (Using Fuzzy AHP)
As mentioned, five steps are employed to calculate the weights of
the first-level hazardous trades. In Step 1, the fuzzy pairwise com-
parison matrix was created as given in Table 10. As stated earlier,
64 valid responses are available for this process. Subsequently, fol-
lowing Steps 3–5, the weight vector could be obtained as shown in
Table 9. The most important hazardous trade to measure the project
hazard level of the construction project is tunneling. This is fol-
lowed by lifting and hoisting machinery, roof work, excavation
work, erection of steel/precast concrete structures (El-Shahhat et al.
1993), welding, cutting, and hot works (Imriyas et al. 2007), con-
struction tools and machinery use (Neitzel et al. 2001), scaffolding
and ladder usage (Rubio-Romero et al. 2013), false work (Rubio-
Romero et al. 2013), and concrete work (El-Shahhat et al. 1993).
Most of the accidents are associated with tunneling (Wu et al.
2015), lifting and hoisting machinery (Neitzel et al. 2001), and roof
work (Johnson et al. 1998). This shows that the results obtained are
reasonable.
Measurement of Project Hazard Index at the First Level
of the Hierarchy (Using WSM)
The final index of the project hazard level can be calculated using
the following formula:
PHIi ¼ h1 · W 1 þ h2 · W 2 þ · · · þh10 · W 10
¼ h1 × 0.066 þ h2 × 0.070 þ h3 × 0.153 þ h4 × 0.083
þ h5 × 0.092 þ h6 × 0.053 þ h7 × 0.096 þ h8 × 0.108
þ h9 × 0.049 þ h10 × 0.230 ð12Þ
The PHI is a function of 10 hazardous trades and their attributes.
Its value varies from 0 to 1. However, a 0 or 1 value of the PHI is
not realistic because PHI ¼ 0 means no hazard situation in the
project site whereas PHI ¼ 1 represents the highest level of project
hazard in the project site, which does not seem practical as only an
insensitive management will allow work in such situations. Higher
values of the PHI show higher project hazard levels and vice versa.
Practical Implications and Validation of the Study
Based on the evaluation procedure of this framework, the value of
PHI can be easily evaluated. To determine the PHI of any project,
attributes should be evaluated using linguistic terms on a seven-
point Likert scale from extremely low (EL) to extremely high (EH),
where a value of 1 stands for EL; a value of 7 stands for EH;
a value of 4 stands for neutral (N); and values of 2, 3, 5, and 6
stand for intermediate values to reflect compromises as input, as
demonstrated in Table 2. For the sake of convenience, an online
web-based project-hazard-evaluation tool can easily be developed
using computer software and programming. In this tool, a user has
to input evaluation value of the attributes of each hazardous trade
taken on the linguistic scale only. Based this information, the tool
will compute and display the PHI of that project. Thus construction
industry can directly use the online system to measure the project
hazard level of the projects and improve them. It is also a practical
tool to improve safety management of the projects. The PHI can be
used to compare the project hazard level among projects and it can
also be employed to measure the hazard level of a project in differ-
ent points of time.

© ASCE 04016081-11 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 (0.24,0.27,0.31)
(0.31,0.35,0.41)
(0.40,0.45,0.52)
(0.24,0.27,0.30)
(0.35,0.39,0.44)
(0.27,0.29,0.33)
(0.32,0.36,0.41)
(0.49,0.55,0.63)
(0.26,0.28,0.31)
(1.00,1.00,1.00)
Feng (2013) found a stronger positive effect of safety budget
(investment) on accident prevention under a higher safety culture
F10 level and project hazard level. This study has considered the differ-
ent project sites of Delhi metro construction project for the appli-
cation of the PHI and to examine the relationship between project
hazard level and safety budget. A rail route (from the source station,
(1.43,1.73,2.04)
(1.48,1.84,2.20)
(2.15,2.62,3.11)
(1.39,1.76,2.16)
(1.83,2.39,2.97)
(1.29,1.66,2.12)
(1.21,1.49,1.91)
(1.69,2.15,2.59)
(1.00,1.00,1.00)
(3.20,3.53,3.82)
Janak Puri West, to a destination station, Botanical Garden) of
Phase III of Delhi metro rail project is under construction, and it
F9

consists of 30 construction project sites. The authors visited and

computed the PHI of each project site, evaluating physical attrib-
utes of 10 hazardous trades and using Eq. (12). They also collected
(1.59,1.82,2.02) 2.02) safety budget information for each of these projects sites. Visiting
of sites and compilation of data took 50 days. After confirming
(0.62,0.70,0.81)
(0.50,0.60,0.72)
(0.88,1.06,1.31)
(0.63,0.73,0.86)
(0.79,0.94,1.11)
(0.54,0.63,0.74)
(0.71,0.86,1.06)
(1.00,1.00,1.00)
(0.38,0.47,0.59)

normality and linearity of data, Pearson correlation is computed at

the 0.01 significance level (two-tailed). It is found to be 0.624,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

F8

which shows the correlation between safety budget and the PHI on
expected lines. The coefficient of determination (R2 ) is found to be
0.39. It means that 39% of the variability in the safety budget is
shared by the PHI alone. In a similar manner, the relationship be-
tween project hazard level and other determinants of safety perfor-
(0.45,0.52,0.63)
(0.61,0.68,0.79)
(1.22,1.51,1.83)
(0.64,0.77,0.95)
(0.61,0.73,0.88)
(0.59,0.72,0.89)
(1.00,1.00,1.00)
(0.94,1.16,1.41)
(0.52,0.67,0.83)
(2.46,2.81,3.10)

mance can be studied.

The proposed framework focuses on hazardous trades and their
F7

attributes to evaluate a project’s hazard level because in most

construction projects, various teams and contractors are working
tradewise. Therefore, it does not need to identify the important
hazardous trades every time, as in previous studies (Liu and Tsai
(1.69,2.06,2.46)
(1.38,1.73,2.13)
(2.01,2.46,2.96)
(1.57,1.96,2.35)
(2.03,2.58,3.19)
(1.00,1.00,1.00)
(1.12,1.38,1.69)
(1.35,1.59,1.84)
(0.47,0.60,0.78)
(3.05,3.39,3.65)

2012). Risk is the product of likelihood of an accident and its

severity. The probability approach believes in the closed-world
F6

model where every data point is known (Pinto 2014). However,

due to absence of reliable accident statistics and severity data, this
framework uses the possibility approach, which never assumes
that all data could have been known (Pinto 2014). Gürcanli and
(0.64,0.75,0.88)
(0.61,0.70,0.82)
(1.64,1.95,2.31)
(0.95,1.15,1.41)
(1.00,1.00,1.00)
(0.31,0.39,0.49)
(1.14,1.38,1.65)
(0.90,1.06,1.26)
(0.34,0.42,0.55)
(2.26,2.55,2.83)

Müngen (2009) used fuzzy logic, Mamdani fuzzy inference, and

If-Then rules in their model to transform a knowledge map into
F5

nonlinear mapping. However, it adds complexity into the model

while this proposed framework does not need to use If-Then rules
and fuzzy inference. Previous models (Dağdeviren and Yüksel
2008; Gürcanli and Müngen 2009; Pinto 2014) do not consider the
(0.45,0.55,0.67)
(0.75,0.90,1.08)
(1.99,2.35,2.75)
(1.00,1.00,1.00)
(0.71,0.87,1.05)
(0.43,0.51,0.64)
(1.06,1.29,1.55)
(1.16,1.37,1.58)
(0.46,1.76,0.72)
(3.39,3.76,4.11)

nonadditive nature of the subfactors or attributes lying at lower lev-

els in the framework of the studies, as in the proposed framework.
F4

On the other hand in this study, the 10 hazardous trades essential

in construction project sites for determining the hazard level of a
construction project were examined. These hazardous trades pro-
vide a thorough analysis of all their specific attributes involved
(0.27,0.31,0.33)
(0.28,0.31,0.36)
(1.00,1.00,1.00)
(0.36,0.43,0.50)
(0.43,0.51,0.61)
(0.30,0.41,0.50)
(0.55,0.66,0.82)
(0.76,0.94,1.14)
(0.32,0.38,0.46)
(1.92,2.23,2.50)

in the hazard level of construction sites. The use of the linguistic

variables and fuzzy integrals to assess attributes of hazardous trades
F3

proved to be a versatile and robust way of estimating and integrat-

ing them. Fuzzy set theory takes care of uncertainty, complexity of
human behavior, and the linguistic-scale measurement.
Table 10. Fuzzy Pair Wise Comparison Matrix

(0.94,1.09,1.27)
(1.00,1.00,1.00)
(2.74,3.22,3.62)
(0.92,1.11,1.33)
(1.22,1.43,1.65)
(0.47,0.58,0.73)
(1.27,1.46,1.65)
(1.40,1.67,2.00)
(0.45,0.54,0.67)
(2.42,2.85,3.25)

Summary and Conclusions

F2

This study aimed to develop a framework to process for evaluation

of the hazard level of a construction project. Therefore, 10 hazard-
ous trades with their corresponding physical attributes were deter-
(1.00,1.00,1.00)
(0.79,0.92,1.06)
(3.00,3.27,3.67)
(1.50,1.83,2.23)
(1.13,1.34,1.57)
(0.41,0.49,0.59)
(1.58,1.91,2.24)
(1.24,1.43,1.61)
(0.49,0.58,0.70)
(3.25,3.77,4.16)

mined using the Delphi method. The possibility approach was

preferred to probability approach because of the unavailability of
F1

past records and similar kinds of research in the existing literature.

FAHP was used to determine the weight of each hazardous trade,
and fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals were adopted to evaluate
the attributes of each hazardous trade because of their nonadditive
Number

nature. To design the weight matrix in FAHP and evaluate

F10
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9

attributes, data were collected through questionnaire surveys from

© ASCE 04016081-12 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 several projects from different parts of India. By using WSM, the Sugeno (1974) defined fuzzy measure as follows:
PHI was developed and presented to evaluate the project hazard
level of a construction project. Thus, a framework was formulated g:ℵ → ½0; 1
to evaluate and formulate the index of project hazard level.
So far, most studies have focused on identification of hazards
and risk management using the probability approach. From a theo- 1. gðϕÞ ¼ 0, gðXÞ ¼ 1;
retical perspective, the possibility approach (non-probability) is a 2. gðϕÞ < gðXÞ if A ⊂ B; and
novel approach for evaluating the project hazard level in the con- 3. If ðAÞ∞
i¼1 is an increasing sequence of measurable sets, then
struction industry. Use of fuzzy logic in the evaluation process fur- limi→∞ gðAi Þ ¼ gðlimi→∞ Ai Þ.
ther extends the method of the AHP. In addition, fuzzy measures
and fuzzy integrals take care of attribute weights, which are non-
additive and in the same hierarchy as the evaluation framework. Properties of λ-Fuzzy
Based on this developed framework, a user-friendly web-based tool Properties of λ-Fuzzy measures are as below.
can easily be developed to compute the PHI. The computed PHI For all A, B ⊂ X and A ∩ B ¼ ϕ,
can be utilized for better resource management. Thus, this study
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sets up a comprehensive map of quantification and integration of [

hazards at the project level including different trades and their gðA BÞ ¼ gðAÞ þ gðBÞ þ λgðAÞgðBÞ for some λ > −1 ð13Þ
attributes instead of considering the activities. Many subcontractors
and trades are associated with a construction project, and hazard
levels vary from one trade to another trade. Based on the weights Let X ¼ fx1 ; x1 ; : : : ; xn g be a finite set and let gi ¼ g½ðxi Þ. The
of different hazardous trades, they could be differentiated and thus mapping xi → gi is called a fuzzy density function. Suppose
the safety of crews involved in different trades can be managed A ¼ X ¼ fx1 ; x1 ; : : : ; xn g ⊆ X. A has m elements, xi1 is the first
effectively. Thus, a strategy to improve safety performance should element of the classifier i, and xim is the element m of the classi-
be developed from the whole-to-part approach. It means the safety fier i. Therefore
management system should focus on a crew or trade level to under-
stand and improve safety culture effectively. In the absence of X
m X
m−1 X
m
reliable accident data, the possibility approach can be used to evalu- gðAÞ ¼ gij þ λ gij gik þ · · · þλm−1 gi1 gi2 : : : gim
ate project hazard levels. j¼1 j¼1 k¼jþ1
In the first phase of the study, use of only 10 hazardous trades is  m 
1 Y 
a main limitation of the study. This study does not include personal ¼  ð1 þ λgij Þ − 1 for − 1 < λ < ∞ ð14Þ
and psychological attributes of the hazardous trades in evaluation of λ j¼1
hazard level. Issues in fuzzy set theory, such as determining a mem-
bership function and selecting a fuzzy measure, still exist in the
second phase of the study. However, most construction personnel Eq. (14) is the generalization of the Eq. (13), which indicates the
do not have expertise or knowledge to carry out a hazard assess- union
P of only two subsets, A and B. The first section of Eq. (14)
ment of a project site. The purpose of this study is to fill this gap by ( m j¼1 gij ) is the summation of all the fuzzy densities from Element
developing a methodology to assess a project’s hazard level using 1 to m of the classifier i (m is the number
Pm−1 P of elements in subset A).
m
the possibility approach. In development of the PHI, the combined The second section of the Eq. (14) ( j¼1 k¼jþ1 gij gik ) means the
use of fuzzy integral, FAHP, and WSM is a novel attempt in the interinfluence of every two fuzzy densities, where gij is the jth
construction industry and safety science. fuzzy density of the classifier i and gik is the kth fuzzy density of
the classifier i. In the third section of Eq. (14), (λm−1 gi1 gi2 ; : : : ; gim )
means multiplying λ by λ for m−1 times (number of elements
Appendix I. λ Fuzzy Measure and Fuzzy Integral in subset A minus) and then multiplying the result with
(gi1 gi2 ; : : : ; gim ). These are the fuzzy density values of every
Fuzzy measures are the generalization of the classical measures. element of the subset A for classifier i. Eq. (14) calculates the
By a measurable space, it means a ðX; ℵÞ consisting of a set X λ-fuzzy measure for A, which is the subset of the finite set X. Thus,
and a ℵ-algebra of subset of X. A subset A of X is called measurable the value of λ can be found from the Eq. (14).
(or measurable with respect to ℵ) if A ∈ ℵ. A measure μ on a meas- Fuzzy integrals are nonlinear functional, analogous to Lebesque
urable space ðX; ℵÞ is a real nonnegative set function defined for integrals, where the integral is defined over measurable sets (Cao
all sets of ℵ such that μðϕÞ ¼ 0, and if ðAÞ∞ 2006). Let ðX; ℵÞ be a measurable space and let h:X → ½0,1 be a
i¼1 is a disjoint family of
sets with Ai ∈ ℵ, i ≥ 1, then ℵ-measurable function.
The fuzzy integral over A ⊂ X of the function h with respect to a
∞  X ∞ fuzzy measure is defined as follows:
μ ∪ Ai ¼ μðAi Þ
i¼1
i¼1 I
hðxÞ ∘ gð·Þ ¼ sup fmin½min hðxÞ; gðA ∩ EÞg
A measure μ has the following properties: A E⊆X x∈E

¼ sup min½α; gðA ∩ Fα Þ

μðAÞ ≤ μðBÞ if A ⊂ B α∈½0;1

1. If ðAÞ∞
i¼1 is an increasing sequence of measurable sets, then where Fα ¼ ½x:hðxÞ ≥ α.
limi→∞ μðAi Þ ¼ μðlimi→∞ Ai Þ; and A more general equation of fuzzy integral is defined by Sugeno
2. An important example of such a measure is the probability mea- (1974) as follows. Assuming that hðx1 Þ ≥ hðx2 Þ ≥; : : : ; hðxn Þ, then
sure, P, where PðXÞ ¼ 1. the fuzzy integral is

© ASCE 04016081-13 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 Z
ðCÞ hdg ¼ hðxn ÞgðH n Þ þ ½hðxn−1 Þ − hðxn ÞgðHn−1 Þ
þ ··· þ½hðx2Þ − hðx1 ÞgðH1Þ¼hðxnÞ½gðHn Þ − gðHn−1Þ
þ hðxn−1 Þ½gðH n−1 Þ − gðH n−2 Þþ ··· þhðx1 ÞgðH1 Þ
ð15Þ
where H1 ¼ fx1 g; H2 ¼ fx1 ; x2 g; : : : :Hn ¼ fx1 ; x2 ; : : : xn g ¼ X.
Moreover, if λ ¼ 0 and g1 ¼ g2 ¼; : : : ; ¼ gn , then hðx1 Þ ≥
hðx2 Þ ≥; : : : ; hðxn Þ is not a necessary condition.
The following is the interpretation of the fuzzy integral. Suppose
that an object is calculated from the point of view of a set of sources
X. Let hðxÞ ∈ ½0; 1 denote the decision for the object when source
x ∈ X is considered and let g½ðxÞ denote the degree of impor-
tance of this source. At this time, suppose the object is evaluated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
using sources from A ⊆ X. It is logical to consider a quantity
WðAÞ ¼ min hðxÞ as the best security decision that the object pro-
x∈A
vides and gðAÞ expresses the grade of importance of this subset of
sources. The value obtained from comparing these two quantities in
terms of the min operator is interpreted as the grade of agreement
between real possibilities, hðxÞ, and the expectations, g. Therefore,
fuzzy integration is interpreted as searching for the maximal grade
of agreement between objective evidence and the expectation.
The properties of fuzzy integral are (Cao 2006) H Cao, N. (2006). “Supply-chain performance measurement in textile and
1. If hðxÞ ¼ c, for all x ∈ X, 0 ≤ c ≤ 1, then X HhðxÞ ∘ gð·Þ ¼ c;
H h1 ðxÞ ≤ h2 ðxÞ, for all x ∈ X, then X h1 ðxÞ ∘ gð·Þ ≤
2. If
X h2 ðxÞ ∘ gð·Þ; H H Carter, G., and Smith, S. (2006). “Safety hazard identification on construc-
3. If A ⊂ B, then A hðxÞ ∘ gð·Þ ≤ A hðxÞ ∘ gð·Þ; and
4. HLet fAi :i ¼ 1; 2; : : : ng be a portion of the set x, then
X hðxÞ ∘ gð·Þ ≥ maxðe1 ; : : : ; en Þ, where ei is the fuzzy integral
of h with respect to g over Ai. The interpretation of all these
properties related to the fuzzy integral as an information fusion
technique should be obvious.
The calculation of the fuzzy integral when X is a finite set is
easily given. Let X ¼ fx1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xn g be a finite set and let h:X →
½0; 1 be a function. Suppose hðx1 Þ ≥ hðx2 Þ ≥; : : : ; hðxn Þ (if not, X
is rearranged so that this relation holds). Then, a fuzzy integral e
with respect to a fuzzy measure g over X can be calculated by
n
e ¼ maxfmin½hðxi Þ; gðAi Þg where Ai ¼ fx1 ; : : : ; xi g.
i¼1
When g is λ-fuzzy measure, the value of gðAi Þ can be deter-
mined recursively as gðA1 Þ ¼ g½ðx1 Þ ¼ g1
gðAi Þ ¼ g½ðx1 ; : : : ; xi−1 ; xi Þ ¼ gi þ gðAi−1 Þ þ λgi gðAi−1 Þ
for 1 < i ≤ n
In this way, the calculation of the fuzzy integral with respect to a
λ-fuzzy measure would only require the knowledge of the density
function, where the ith density, gi , is interpreted as the degree of
importance of the source xi , for i ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; n.
Appendix II. Numerical Linguistic Transformation
Function
Let r ∈ ½0,1 be a numerical value, and let si be a label verify-
ing that
hðr; si Þ ¼ min½hðr; st Þj ∀ st ∈ S
with
( 28(6), 593–600.
z if r ∈= Suppðst Þ
hðr; si Þ ¼ Pz
j¼1 ½r − Gj ðst Þ2 if r ∈ Suppðst Þ
© ASCE
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1
where z = number of is dividing points; Gj ðst Þ = jth numerical
value of the linguistic variable si ; and Suppðst Þ = scope of the
numerical value of the linguistic variable si .
References
Baloi, D., and Price, A. D. F. (2003). “Modelling global risk factors affect-
ing construction cost performance.” Int. J. Project Manage., 21(4),
261–269.
Banon, G. (1981). “Distinction between several subsets of fuzzy measures.”
Fuzzy Sets Syst., 5(3), 291–305.
Baradan, S., and Usmen, M. (2006). “Comparative injury and fatality risk
analysis of building trades.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(2006)132:5(533), 533–539.
Benardos, A. G., and Kaliampakos, D. C. (2004). “A methodology for
assessing geotechnical hazards for TBM tunnelling-illustrated by the
Athens Metro Greece.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci., 41(6), 987–999.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). (2001). Handbook on construction
safety practices, BIS SP70, New Delhi, India.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). (2007). “Occupational health and safety
management system–requirements with guidance for use.” BIS 18001,
New Delhi, India.
Buckley, J. J. (1985). “Fuzzy hierarchical analysis.” Fuzzy Sets Syst., 17(3),
233–247.
apparel industries.” Ph.D. dissertation, Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ.,
Hong Kong.
tion projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(2006)132:2(197), 197–205.
Chen, C. T. (2000). “Extension of TOPSIS for group decision-making
under fuzzy environment.” Fuzzy Sets Syst., 114(1), 1–9.
Chen, S. J., Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making:
Methods and applications, Springer, Berlin.
Chou, S. Y., Chang, Y. H., and Shen, C. Y. (2008). “A fuzzy simple additive
weighting system under group decision-making for facility location se-
lection with objective/subjective attributes.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 189(1),
132–145.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). “A paradigm for development of better measures of
marketing constructs.” J. Marketing Res., 16(1), 64–73.
Dağdeviren, M., and Yüksel, I. (2008). “Developing a fuzzy analytic hier-
archy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management.”
Inf. Sci., 178(6), 1717–1733.
Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., and Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group
techniques for program planning, Scott, Foresman and Company,
Glenview, IL.
Delgado, M., Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, F., and Martinez, L. (1998).
“Combining numerical and linguistic information in group decision
making.” Inf. Sci., 107(1–4), 177–194.
Dharmapalan, V., Gambatese, J., Fradella, J., and Moghaddam Vahed, A.
(2015). “Quantification and assessment of safety risk in the design of
multistory buildings.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0000952, 04014090.
Dubois, D., and Prade, H. (2015). “Possibility theory and its applications:
Where do we stand?” Springer handbook of computational intelligence,
Springer, Berlin, 31–60.
El-Shahhat, A. M., Rosowsky, D. V., and Chen, W. F. (1993). “Construc-
tion safety of multistory concrete buildings.” Struct. J., 90(4), 335–341.
Feng, Y. (2013). “Effect of safety investments on safety performance of
building projects.” Ph.D. thesis, National Univ. of Singapore (NUS),
Singapore.
Fung, I. W. H., Tam, V. W. Y., and Lu, L. H. L. (2010). “Developing a risk
assessment model for construction safety.” Int. J. Project Manage.,
Gürcanli, G. E., and Müngen, U. (2009). “An occupational safety risk
analysis method at construction sites using fuzzy sets.” Int. J. Ind.
Ergon., 39(2), 371–387.
04016081-14 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (1995). Multi-
variate data analysis with readings, 4th Ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Hallowell, M. R., and Gambatese, J. A. (2010). “Qualitative research:
Application of the Delphi method to CEM research.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000137, 99–107.
Hastak, M., and Halpin, D. W. (2000). “Assessment of life-cycle benefit
cost of composites in construction.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2000)4:3(103), 103–111.
Imriyas, K., Low, S., Teo, A., and Chan, S. (2008). “Premium-rating model
for workers’ compensation insurance in construction.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:8(601), 601–617.
Imriyas, K., Pheng, L. S., and Lin, T. A. (2007). “A decision support system
for predicting accident risks in building projects.” Archit. Sci. Rev.,
50(2), 149–162.
Johnson, H., Singh, A., and Young, R. (1998). “Fall protection analysis for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
workers on residential roofs.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:5(418), 418–428.
Jordan, E., and Javernick-Will, A. (2013). “Indicators of community re-
covery: Content analysis and Delphi approach.” Nat. Hazards Rev.,
10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000087, 21–28.
Laukkanen, T. (1999). “Construction work and education: Occupational
health and safety reviewed.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 17(1), 53–62.
Lee, D. (2006). “A generalized approach for analyzing transportation user
perception using fuzzy sets.” Ph.D. thesis, Pennsylvania State Univ.,
State College, PA.
Lee, S. (2014). “Determination of priority weights under multi-attribute
decision-making situations: AHP versus fuzzy AHP.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000897, 05014015.
Liu, H. T., and Tsai, Y. L. (2012). “A fuzzy risk assessment approach for
occupational hazards in the construction industry.” Saf. Sci., 50(4),
1067–1078.
Lott, R. J. (2005). “Controlling workers’ compensation cost a risk man-
agement program.”〈http://www.healthconsultantsusa.com/Risk_Mgmt
_Program_Controlling_Worker_Comp_Costs.pdf〉 (Oct. 31, 2011).
MATLAB R2010b [Computer software]. MathWorks, Natick, MA.
Mohamed, S., and McCowan, A. K. (2001). “Modelling project investment
decisions under uncertainties using possibility theory.” Int. J. Project
Manage., 19(4), 231–241.
Neitzel, R. L., Seixas, N. S., and Ren, K. K. (2001). “A review of crane
safety in the construction industry.” Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg.,
16(12), 1106–1117.
NICMAR (National Institute of Construction Management and Research).
(1998). Safety management in the construction industry-A manual for
project managers, 2nd Ed., Mumbai, India.
© ASCE 04016081-15
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1
Patel, D. A., and Jha, K. N. (2015). “Neural network model for the pre-
diction of safe work behavior in construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000922, 04014066.
Patel, D. A. (2015). “Estimating the number of fatal accidents and inves-
tigating the determinants of safety performance in Indian construction.”
Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India.
Pinto, A. (2014). “QRAM a qualitative occupational safety risk assessment
model for the construction industry that incorporates uncertainties by
the use of fuzzy sets.” Saf. Sci., 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.10.019, 57–76.
Rao, R. V. (2007). Decision making in the manufacturing environment:
Using Graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision, Springer,
London.
Rubio-Romero, J., Rubio, M., and García-Hernández, C. (2013). “Analysis
of construction equipment safety in temporary work at height.” J.
Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000567, 9–14.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process, McGraw Hill,
New York.
Saaty, T. L. (1986). “Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy
process.” Manage. Sci., 32(7), 841–855.
Sachs, T., and Tiong, R. L. (2009). “Quantifying qualitative information
on risks: Development of the QQIR method.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:1(56), 56–71.
Shafer, G. (1976). A mathematical theory of evidence, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ.
Shapira, A., and Goldenberg, M. (2005). “AHP-based equipment selection
model for construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:12(1263), 1263–1273.
Skibniewski, M., and Chao, L. C. (1992). “Evaluation of advanced con-
struction technology with AHP method.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1992)118:3(577), 577–593.
Sugeno, M. (1974). “Theory of fuzzy integrals and its applications.” Ph.D.
dissertation, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo.
Tam, C. M., Tong, T. K. L., Chiu, G. C., and Fung, I. W. H. (2002). “Non-
structural fuzzy decision support system for evaluation of construction
safety management system.” Int. J. Project Manage., 20(4), 303–313.
Tanaka, H., Guo, P., and Türksen, I. B. (2000). “Portfolio selection based
on fuzzy probabilities and possibility distributions.” Fuzzy Sets Syst.,
111(3), 387–397.
Wu, X., Liu, H., Zhang, L., Skibniewski, M. J., Deng, Q., and Teng, J.
(2015). “A dynamic Bayesian network based approach to safety deci-
sion support in tunnel construction.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 134(0),
157–168.
Zadeh, L. A. (1978). “Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility.”
Fuzzy Sets Syst., 1(1), 3–28.
Zadeh, L. A. (1995). “Discussion: Probability theory and fuzzy logic
are complementary rather than competitive.” Technometrics, 37(3),
271–276.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.